BRUNDABAN SAHOO Vs. RANI BEWA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant in the court below has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Puri in T.A. No. 32/21-02/01 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nimapra in Title Suit No. 3/180 of 2000/1988.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, clarity and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arrayed in the court below.

(3.) The predecessor-in-interest of these represents as plaintiff had filed the suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit land comprising of Ac.0.1 dec. out of Ac.0.12 dec. from the northern side of C.S. plot no:-706; under Sabik Khata No. 62 corresponding to Plot No. 819 of an area Ac.01 dec. adjacent to the road side land of the road connecting to Pipili to Astaranga via Niamapra-Kakatpur. It is stated that the land originally belonged to Bansidhar Sahoo and Jagannath Sahoo and others. It was lying vacant. Its importance came when weekly markets started running at Nayahat. The suit land is said to have been occupied by late father of the plaintiff by raising a thatched shed with the consent of the land owner way back in 1950-51. It is further stated that he was carrying on confectionery business thereon. When the business activity grew, he occupied a portion of the road side of PWD land and made another thatched house and started running a sweet meat stall. In the year 1962, the father of the plaintiff received a unregistered patta from the land owner in respect of the suit land. The rent being settled in respect of the same, the land stood recorded in the name of the plaintiff in the settlement operation. However, due to objection by the land owner in the consolidation operation, possession note of the plaintiff was simply made. Thereafter, the plaintiff purchased the suit land under registered sale deed on payment of consideration, and accordingly said to have acquired title over the same. He got it recorded in his name in the consolidation R.O.R. It is the further case that though the possession of the original plaintiff was recorded in respect of Ac.01 dec. of land, the actual area was more than that for which at this stage of consolidation operation on spot verification the area of the land was noted as Ac.0.02.dec. The plaintiff said to have demolished the old dilapidated sheds and built up the pucca structure with RCC roof with further construction of the side roof with asbestos roof and those got completed in the year 1988. The defendant, a co-villager had also purchased the portion of the land from out of the said plot belonging to the same land owner only under registered sale deed in the year 1982, who had also made some temporary structure over the same prior to the said purchase with the consent of the land owner. It may be mentioned here that both the plaintiff and defendant got the sale deeds on the same day. It is stated that after completion of the suit building the defendant requested the plaintiff to permit him to occupy the disputed house in question for a period of three to four months so that during that time he would be completing the pucca structure over the land bearing Consolidation Plot No. 818 under Khata No. 260 measuring an area of Ac.0.1 dec. The said request was acceded to. However, as the defendant did demolish the kacha house and did go for the pucca structure on his own land and allowed his own men to occupy old structure, suspicion arose in the mind and finally in May, 1988 defendant was asked to vacate which he did pay any heed to. This has given rise to the suit as stated above.